The inconsistency of Trump White House policies has reached new heights, or perhaps better stated, has sunk to new depths in light of a Wall Street Journal exposée purportedly detailing the arguments inside Donald Trump’s “war room”. According to the report, prior to the tripartite aggression committed against the Syrian Arab Republic, Trump had argued that the US, UK and France should launch a full scale attack on all the military hardware in the Syrian Arab Republic, including Russian controlled missile defence systems.

This option which would have likely crossed Russia’s so-called red line, would have almost certainly resulted in Russia following through with its promise to retaliate against the launching sites of any missiles which hit Russian human or material assets in Syria. Ultimately, this was averted as according to the same report, Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis insisted on his preference for a so-called “limited strike” which would avoid the risk of striking Russian assets. This is largely in-line with Mattis’s position on Syria which can be classed as “moderate” by US standards. Even, the US National Security Adviser, the infamous war-hawk John Bolton apparently felt that Trump’s proposals for a large scale strike was a step too far.

In this respect while Mattis’s reported statements are similar to that which he said in public, so too were Donald Trump’s alleged remarks in-line with a Tweet he issued which read as a direct threat to Russian assets in Syria.

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

Thus, one starts to see a picture where Donald Trump was by far the most extreme advocate for what could have easily become an intensified Russo-US conflict, while James Mattis was at the opposite end of the spectrum, urging caution. If even John Bolton was not willing to risk a direct missile confrontation with Russia as Trump was, this leaves the possibility that Trump, a man who campaigned on a broadly non-interventionist platform has either radically changed his views or otherwise, that he is under the influence of someone far more militant than even John Bolton. The question then is, who might such a person be?

A clear candidate is Trump’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Haley has consistently been more threatening to Russia than any other Cabinet level official in the Trump White House. Furthermore, when it comes to those focusing on Foreign Policy among Cabinet level officials, Haley has remained in her position since Trump first took office while Trump has seen two Secretaries of State and three National Security Advisers. The only Cabinet level official who deals with foreign policy matters who has been in the Trump White House for as long as Haley is of course James “Mad Dog” Mattis and based on recent events it is fair to say that the restrained “Mad Dog” is not the one pushing Trump towards more war and hostility.

For example, Mattis stated just last week that the US is not in possession of evidence indicating that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack in Douma. Haley has consistently said the opposite both at the UN and during interviews. Mattis has also been far more muted when it comes to issuing military threats against Syria and its partners than Haley. This is a trend that dates back to April of 2017 and continues to this day.

Thus, when on the 15th of April, Nikki Haley told interviewers that the US was about to pass further sanctions on Russia, many believed this to be true. However, the sanctions have not yet come although Haley promised their announcement by the 16th at the latest. Now it has been revealed that Trump has put the new sanctions on hold in what can either be attributed to a miscommunication between Trump and Haley or otherwise a rebuke of Haley from Trump or his other advisers.

Rumours of Trump and Haley having an adulterous affair have abounded ever since a suggestion of such was made by Michael Wolff, the author of a tell-all book about the first chaotic year of the Trump Presidency called Fire and Fury. The rumours have been so persistent that Nikki Haley publicly denied them. By contrast, Donald Trump has not addressed the issue although his now exposed adulterous affair with obscene entertainer Stormy Daniels is now widely known.

Donald Trump’s own inclinations before winning his election were not only for wider international non-interventionism but they were in favour of global de-escalation in conflict zones, including in Syria. Trump even proposed working with Russia in Syria before winning his election. While many have pointed to complex theories about a so-called ‘deep state’ conspiracy to undermine these election pledges made by then candidate Trump, it could be that a simpler explanation points to the truth.

Nikki Haley could well be a lady Macbeth character pulling Trump to both war and infamy. She may have overstepped her bounds in announcing sanctions that had not yet been agreed, but in many other areas, it is looking as though Donald Trump is not Vladimir Putin’s puppet, he is Nikki Haley’s puppet in more ways than one. Indeed, perhaps one of the reasons that Trump grew particularly angry with Russia was the fact that the meeting reported by the Wall Street Journey took place not long after Nikki Haley was filmed sharing a friendly kiss and hug with Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya. Perhaps this was an innocent kiss that triggered the fire and fury of a deeply angry and jealous man?